Menu

Alpha Tells

For as long as I’ve been writing in the manosphere, the definition of “what is Alpha?” has been the number one point of contention I’ve had to state and restate the most often. I’m not going to rehash this now as I have several posts on the nature of Alpha already linked in the sidebar, so if you’re looking for my take on Alpha that’s where to find it.

However, to lead in to today’s post I need to address the basis of what I believe are the most common misunderstandings about the term Alpha.

Well before the inception of this blog, in the early beginnings of what would evolve into the manosphere there was a need of terminology to describe the more abstract concepts developing in the ‘community’. Some of these analogies and terms are still with the manosphere today, others have morphed into more useful abstractions; Alpha Widows, Hypergamy (in its true nature), the Feminine Imperative, even Red Pill awareness are all examples of established terms or analogies for understood abstractions. Among these are also the concepts of a man being Alpha and Beta.

Hater: Your definition of an alpha male is false. In the animal kingdom, the alpha male is leader of the pack, not a cad/badboy/jerk who pumps and dumps women.

Isn’t it just like a nerd to get hysterical over the appropriation of a narrow-sense scientific term to conveniently illustrate broader truths about men and women.

One of the most common disconnects men encounter with the Red Pill for the first time is equating the term Alpha with its usage in describing the mating habits of Lions, Wolves or Silver Back Gorillas. It’s easy to ridicule or simply dismiss a valid, but uncomfortable, Red Pill truth when you’re simplistically comfortable in defining ‘Alpha Male’ in literal etymological terms.

This is the first resistance blue pill men claim they have with the Red Pill. They have no problem understanding and using abstractions for blue pill concepts they themselves are ego-invested in, but challenge that belief-paradigm with uncomfortable red pill truths and their first resort is to obstinately define Alpha (as well as Hypergamy) in as narrow, binary and literal a sense as they can muster.

“Get in Touch with Your Feminine Beta Side”

The next most common misunderstanding comes from conflating the abstractions of Alpha and Beta with masculine and feminine traits. In this (often deliberate) misdirection, the concepts of being Alpha or Beta become synonymous with being masculine or feminine. This is the personal basis of Alpha and Beta many Purple Pill advocates (really blue pill apologists) comfortably redefine for themselves, to suit themselves.

This purple pill conflation is really just a comforting return the the curse of Jung – anima & animus – if the complete man is an even mix of Alpha and Beta, masculine and feminine, then all the worst aspects of his “betaness” can’t be all bad, and he reinterprets what really amounts to a complete androgyny as “being the best balance”.

Unfortunately, and as blue pill chumps will later attest, the feminine expects to find its paired balance in the masculine, not an equalist idealization of both in the same man. Thus women, on a limbic level, expect men to be Men.

This one of the missives of an equalitarian mindset; that an individualized, egalitarian balance of masculine and feminine aspects in two independent people should replace the natural complementary interdependence of masculine and feminine attributes in a paired balance that humans evolved into.

What purple pill temperance really equates to is a 21st century return to the 20th century feminized meme “men need to get in touch with their feminine sides”… or else risk feminine rejection. 60+ years of post sexual revolution social engineering has put the lie to what an abject failure this concept has been.

What they fail to grasp is that an Alpha mindset is not definitively associated with masculine attributes. There are plenty of high-functioning, masculine men we would characterize as Alpha based on our perception of them in many aspects of life, who nonetheless are abject supplicating Betas with regard to how they interact with, and defer to women.

Whether that disconnect is due to a learned, Beta deference to the feminine (White Knighting), some internalized fear of rejection, or just a natural predisposition to be so with women, isn’t the issue; what matters is that the abstraction of Alpha isn’t an absolute definitive association with the masculine.

Likewise, Beta attributes are neither inherently feminine. As has been discussed ad infinitum in the manosphere, 80%+ of modern men have been conditioned (or otherwise) to exemplify and promote a feminine-primary, supportive Beta role for themselves and as many other men they can convince to identify more with the feminine.

The Beta mindset isn’t so much one of adopting a feminine mindset as it is a deference to, and the support of, a feminine-primary worldview.

The reason purple pill (watered down red pill) ideology wants to make the association of Alpha = Masculine, Beta = Feminine is because the “get in touch with your feminine side” Beta attributes they possess in spades can be more easily characterized as “really” being Alpha if it helps make him the more androgynously acceptable male he mistakenly believes women are attracted to (if not directly aroused by).

Alpha Tells

From jf12:

The sexual alphaness of a male towards a female is exhibited by her wanting to please him, and the sexual betaness of a male is exhibited by him needing to please her. A man’s alphaness obviously and definitionally does not cause her to more require him to please her (i.e. alphaness does not rub off like that). And also, betaness is not transferrable, no matter how much we betas wish that our women-pleasing caused women to want to please us.

Moreover, the social dominance of a male in a male hierarchy is barely correlated with his sexual alphaness, and certainly not causal. There are far too many counterexamples, such as Bill Gates, Napoleon Bonaparte, Horatio Nelson, and the list is very very long.

However, and this is a key sociologically empirical point, the social dominance of a *female* human (the best kind!) in a *female* human hierarchy is extremely correlated, in this precise way: A woman to whom women cater to will 99.9% of the time demand to be catered to by her man. This is why women believe man-pleasing women (I admit there are some) are “lesser”. It is also why men (e.g. me) who have tended to be mated to females who are socially dominant in a female hierarchy are invariably betas. It’s simply false that female-dominant women tend to choose men who demand pleasing.

What critics of an Alpha/Beta dichotomy conveniently sweep under the conversational carpet is that the dichotomy they want to debate only exists in their convenient, personal interpretations of Alpha or Beta mean to them.

From a male perspective we can endlessly debate (from our own personal biases) what we believe constitutes an Alpha state (remember, an abstract term, stay with me here) and the expectations of which we think women should respond to according to those expectation. But it’s women’s instinctive behaviors around Alpha men (or men they contextually perceive so) that provide us with the tells as to how she perceives a man’s Alpha or Beta status.

For as much as we believe women should respond to our definition of Alpha – and despite how women will explain they agree with those self-prescribed definitions – as always, it is their behaviors when in the presence of, or in a relationship with men they perceive as being Alpha (or of higher sexual market value than themselves if you prefer) that they bely their true, instinctual recognitions of Alpha.

In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number of attractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men – as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior.

There are many examples of this Alpha reactive behavior. I’ll make an attempt to illustrate a few of them here, but I expect there’ll be many more offered in the comment thread an I’ll encourage a discussion of the behaviors that serve as Alpha tells. Rossy/Heartiste has made a sport with his ongoing “spot the Alpha” series of posts in which he analyzes a picture or video of a woman’s reaction to a man who she is obviously has an Alpha interest in as her body language and subcommunications suggest. (h/t to CH for today’s image)

The common criticism of these images is that red pill men would read too much into these displays, but the underlying message in that criticism is rooted in understanding and willfully ignoring what our instinctual perceptions of them are. We know Alpha when we see it, but need an explanation to protect our own ego’s Alpha assessment of ourselves.

The Real Selection

For all the delighted ego ’empowerment’ of women boasting they are the sexual selectors in this life, there is still a nervous uncertainty about being found acceptable themselves to an Alpha lover of higher SMV status than they might otherwise merit. This is where the illusions of an assortive mating model break down for women. If feminine-primary sexual selection were the only element to mating there would be no need for the behaviors women are subject to in seeking the approval from men they perceive as Alpha.

There’s a look, an attitude and a presence women will give to Men for whom they have a natural deference to. I don’t just mean blatant sexual subcommunications like casually biting her lower lip, or the hair twirling that’s almost cliché now. It goes beyond the sexual into a kind of meta-attraction/arousal. While the sexual urgency for an Alpha is strong and manifests in a woman’s forwardness toward him, the meta-attraction is both of submission and a subconscious desire for his approval of her.

Men predisposed to a Beta mindset also display many of these same behavioral cues with the women they hope will appreciate them in the same fashion a woman does for a Man that her hindbrain instinctually knows is of a higher SMV. In Beta men we see these behaviors as evidence of “clinginess” or “neediness” and is an identifiable Beta tell; but in women this natural and unprovoked leaning in to a Man, this desire to submit for his approval, is a positive indicator of Alpha attraction.

This is why, as third party observers, we instinctually find such behavior in men distasteful; we subliminally sense a complementary imbalance between the man and woman.

When a woman makes an unforced effort to please a man with subtle words, unintentional wide-eyed contact, and body positioning / posture you’re dealing with a woman who is compelled to defer to you as Alpha.

That isn’t to say this can’t be faked. In fact strippers, good ones at least, are not just physically arousing, or more sexualized, but are in tune with the deficit most men feel when it comes to this Alpha deference. Beyond just the sexual aspect, one thing that makes strippers so enticing and seductive is that the majority of men are simply unused to the fawning affections and Alpha interest (albeit feigned) of any woman, much less an attractive one.

This is also one reason men become so prone to ONEitis both inside and outside this contrived, transactional, sort of attraction. Men are the True Romantics, they want to believe a woman’s sincerity in her Alpha deference to him.

Does the girl you’re interested in come to you, or do you go to her?

I’ve emphasized the importance of establishing and maintaining Frame for years now, but I sometimes wonder if the importance of holding Frame isn’t lost on most men.

To an equalist mindset this Frame establishment seems like I’m advocating men be domineers of their relationships and a man rely on some dark manipulative psychology to enforce his will in that relationship. That’s not what I’m suggesting for the simple reason that it’s too effort consuming, and genuine desire is unsustainable within that constant effort. Maintaining Frame demands a voluntary, uncoerced, desired compliance.

What I’m suggesting is that men simply not invest themselves in women whose Alpha interest in them is mitigated by doubt or an obvious SMV imbalance. This is difficult for most men as it conflicts with our want for an idealized romance with a woman – a want for a love that requires a mutual definition with a woman lacking the capacity to realize this with him. And it’s within that idealized desire men lose Frame and excuse the behaviors of Alpha deference.

The Medium IS the Message

As I’ve written in the past, the Medium IS the Message with women. On some level of consciousness men instinctually understand their relative status with a woman based on the behaviors she directs toward him.

Is she affectionate without being prompted or only when circumstance makes your comfort needed for her?

Is Amused Mastery an easy default for you, or does she resist even playful attempts at it?

Does she initiate sex with you, or is your provocation only ever the precursor to sex?

Is sex even a priority for her (with you)?

Does she make efforts to make things special for you (you both) or is your relationship one of her grading your efforts in qualifying for her Alpha approval of you?

What most guys think are ‘mixed messages’ or confusing behavior coming from a woman is simply due to their inability (for whatever reason) to make an accurate interpretation of why she’s behaving in such a manner. Usually this boils down to a guy getting so wrapped up in a girl that he’d rather make concessions for her behavior than see it for what it really is. In other words, it’s far easier to call it ‘mixed messages’ or fall back on the old chestnut of how fickle and random women are, when in fact it’s simply a rationale to keep themselves on the hook, so to speak, because they lack any real, viable, options with other women in their lives. A woman that has a high interest level in a guy has no need (and less motivation) to engage in behaviors that would compromise her status with him. Women of all ILs will shit test, and men will pass or fail accordingly, but a test is more easily recognizable when you consider the context in which they’re delivered.

Are you making psychological concessions with a woman who’s never displayed an Alpha deference to you?

Post navigation

205 comments

Whether one is alpha is situational. If one is perceived as 1 to 2 levels superior (in some combination of looks, wealth, and game), outcome indifferent, and replete with apparent options, one is (for the moment, at least) an alpha.

“In Beta men we see these behaviors as evidence of “clinginess” or “neediness” and is an identifiable Beta tell; but in women this natural and unprovoked leaning in to a Man, this desire to submit for his approval, is a positive indicator of Alpha attraction.”

Probably the saddest aspect of the relationship between the sexes is that women do not repond properly to the Golden Rule: a man treating a woman like he wants to be treated, does not work.

Every man reading this post should do a tally of the Alpha Tells exhibited on an *ongoing* basis in his relationship, compared to the Beta Tells. Don’t be scared of being truthful to yourself. I’m at least 90%/10% beta/alpha in my relationship, probably more like 70%/30% to random women. Every woman reading this post should cry all night for shame.

In Yohami’s latest, he conflates being (sexual) Alpha with being (sexual)Masculine, e.g. “In other words it’s OK if a woman [is] like a man. A man who [is] like a man is still a problem.”

In all of the successful trials of the female libido drugs that will be on the market soon, notably Lybrido and Bremelanotide, the women’s vastly increased desire for sex was accompanied by their vastly increased treating of their husbands as if their husbands were Alpha males: doing things for them, bringing them food offerings, grooming them/ rubbing their feet / scratching their back. This is *how* women communicate their desire for sex. And it is why treating women that way Does Not Work for men.

In a social environment where men are conditioned to believe that women are as equal, rational agents as men, the belief men put their faith into is that women will appreciate their intrinsic qualities and base their sexual selectivity upon a man’s virtue, bearing, intelligence, humor, and any number of attractive intrinsic qualities. However, the truth of what women base their sexual selectivity upon (arousal) is far more evident in their instinctual, unconditioned behavior when around Alpha men – as well as men’s instinctual sensitivity to that behavior. ~Rollo Tomassi

What I’m suggesting is that men simply not invest themselves in women whose Alpha interest in them is mitigated by doubt or an obvious SMV imbalance. This is difficult for most men as it conflicts with our want for an idealized romance with a woman – a want for a love that requires a mutual definition with a woman lacking the capacity to realize this with him. And it’s within that idealized desire men lose Frame and excuse the behaviors of Alpha deference.

This is the most helpful “game” advice that can be given to men. They just need to recognize and take note when this is happening in real time and be fully aware that any lustful feelings they might have for a woman not override their reasoning ability to see these clues. Very difficult to do that sometimes. One affectionate look from a woman or one flirtatious conversation can blind every other interaction afterwards. Keep paying attention guys!

I have read the book, “The Laws of Seduction”, which you recommend that we all read. Many, if not most, of the archetypical male seducers detailed in the book are clearly described as having a mix of masculine and feminine qualities, which the books says helped make those men more attractive to women. How does that square with what you are saying in this post?

I believe it was you Rollo that said something along the lines of, “Alpha is a mind-state and not a demographic.” I personally disagree with this. I might sound harsh here to some but hear me out on this.

Alpha is, for the most part, instinctive. Men can become aware to red pill knowledge and apply game to its fullest extent, but most men will not reach “alphadom” in the purest sense of the word. This is because a girl knows alpha as soon as she sees it and she feels it viscerally deep inside her id. Her id cannot be persuaded to unleash genuine desire by only words and/or actions. She also has to like what she “sees.” There’s a reason why people know alpha when they “see” it and when a girl says, “It was love at first sight.”

This happens all the time in my social circle.

Two girls were having a conversation on our way to hitting up some bars for the night and it went something like this:
“So Kathy, why didn’t you invite Tom out?”
“I don’t know. He just doesn’t feel right for me.”
“lol. You’re just saying that because he wasn’t as cute as Roy!”
“Dont even bring Roy up. You know how I still feel about him!”

I personally knew Roy and this guy had the typical all american look to him. He was about 6’4 with a stocky build and he kind of looked like Clay Matthews. Roy’s game consisted of picking up chicks(literally) and being physical all the time. Most guys who tried that would get slapped or charged with a restraining order. This guy obviously caught some heat from time to time but some of you would be amazed at all the stuff he would actually get away with.

As always, I’m talking about young girls here. I don’t have much experience with older women since most of the girls I bang are anywhere from 18-21 years old.

Obviously Tinder comes to mind here, too. When girls match with me and meet me (obviously the bang, too), they’re not going by “who” I am (my bio is only two sentences) but rather by “what” I am from my pictures. It’s funny how a lot of girls will rationalize this to not seem shallow but I know its a visceral response to the look I’m putting out that determines alpha. When we meet in person, I can instantly know how fast she’ll spread for me just by looking at her eyes. It’s hard to put into words but there’s a short intense sexual look they’ll show me. Some girls who are forward, will scan me up and down and slightly pause at my genital area to boot! They think they’re being subtle, but to the trained eye, it’s pretty apparent.

I say this because when I see people struggling with women and when I compare my own experiences, the contrast is striking. A guy can go up to a woman and he might get a lukewarm response but she isn’t as excited to move anything forward. If anything, she’s completely ambivalent to the whole process. She’s more like, “Eh, if it happens it happens.” When I meet most girls, there’s always a need for her to add more into our conversation and certain obnoxious behaviors of mines are completely excused. In other words, my positive qualities are amplified and my negative qualities are minimized by her with no action on my part. She does this all on her own. For some guys, especially betas, this is reversed.

I understand that waking men up from a blue pill state of mind is useful but many will have to come to terms with the fact that the Alpha most men want to be, is already reserved for only a handful of men (re: 80/20 rule). When you really think about it, it has always been this way. This realization is the “red pill within the redpill”, so to speak.

I’m not saying betas should wallow in defeat. Every man should work up his SMV to his fullest capacity and move to an environment where he may thrive above the local men. This is where a “context” or “perspective” alpha comes in. I understand it’s not exactly ideal but when you’re getting constant pussy, who honestly gives a shit?

I have read the book, “The Laws of Seduction”, which you recommend that we all read. Many, if not most, of the archetypical male seducers detailed in the book are clearly described as having a mix of masculine and feminine qualities, which the books says helped make those men more attractive to women. How does that square with what you are saying in this post?

Because it is the ratio (which implies a significant amount of alpha) that counts. Beta (comfort, provision, etc.) itself is not repulsive; lack of alpha is repulsive. All the betas trying to convince themselves and others that their beta traits are attractive are missing both the point, and the alpha.

Why is the alpha lion king of his pride? Because he killed the mother fucker who had the pride before him and he’ll kill whoever tries to take his bitches. That isn’t “leadership” its domination; dominating males and females while keeping his belly full and his dick wet. I reckon blue pill people are as unhappy with that bit of reality as they are with the term alpha being applied to men

There is the key. The first mate is one of those “leader of the pack” women. But she never found happiness mastering or trying to master me. What makes her happy is submission. It has taken a while. But she is getting used to it.

What helps is women – out of the blue – coming on to me. It naturally makes her want to submit. To please me more than the new woman. I remind her of the “other women” all the time. It keeps her submissive and the connection between us clean rather than grasping (on her part).

Women can not control an alpha. All they can do is attract him. And this is instinctive. They would rather break up with a guy than admit they can no longer attract him. And of course some women just give up trying once they feel secure. Thus the advice for LTRs. Never let her feel too secure. Always remind her of the competition. There is no happily ever after – in the romance novel sense.

I dunno. When I was young I didn’t just have trouble with girls. I was shunned by them. Then my first girlfriend taught me the rudiments of Game (back in ’62) and as I got better at it I was off to the races.

Maybe I just brought out my inner alpha. Or maybe I learned to be alpha. But what ever it was I certainly didn’t start out that way. I don’t think that in all cases it is intrinsic. Or that you can’t become what you want to be.

Of course having the physical basics helps. 186.69cm Lean. And 3 yrs in an outlaw MC gang didn’t hurt either. But that was all part of the learning curve. And it helped that demographics were in my favor – an excess of women over men in the 60s era. Lots of competition for the available men. And of course the war took a LOT of men out of circulation.

The “bro” you just described is, to me, my most interesting target. MY challenge. Some yoked up, tatted up gym rat with a weakness of mind is almost more fun and intellectually entertaining to game (non-sexually) than his girl is.

If alpha is the guy you described (the guy who is banging a beta’s girls) then I’m the guy banging his. (well, sometimes….most typical meatheads wearing Affliction or American Fighter or whatever bro-fashion is in now have nasty high T females…bleh.)

I don’t really even care if they find out, they are so shocked…can’t and won’t do shit. When all you understand is visceral violence, you can’t understand the other flavors ie. psychological.

For a well written yet bit over the top example, watch any episode of Calfornication and ask yourself….what would Hank do? If you (not you personally but you get it) cant relate then its time to unfuck yourself.

@Tinder man. I’m betting you’re a good looking guy. But wait looks don’t matter to women as much according to CH! NOT. Looks have always mattered more to women then men when when it comes to just purely sex and less when it comes to commitment. With men it is the reverse, looks matter less when it comes to just sex but matter more when it comes to commitment. CH promptly deleted my posts when I pointed this out on his blog. Scared of this truth no doubt as he falls on his shiv.

Another critical point on the whole “Alpha/Beta – what makes him either?” subject is how not to be fooled on perception or first glance.

What I mean by this is that many people will see the typical beefcake gym guy with tattoos, and automatically assume he is an Alpha male because of this image. Then you will see him act with poor body language, an inability to articulate and supplication (even if in vain attempt to conceal) when around women. A high status man working as a director may portray an Alpha reputation due to his power and leadership qualities in the workplace, but most of these men are still lapdogs in the company of females.

On the other hand, you could (even though you rarely will) see a nerdy looking guy who looks as Beta as they come, but despite his weak frame and lack of stand-out physique or profession, his ability to perform the manifestation of knowledge brought from game, red pill truisms and female emotional result in a greater challenge to women than the aforementioned male types.

And on the topic of strippers faking attraction to get money out of gullible men, the below post will explain even more:

Dread is absolutely key in any LTR. Just yesterday at the lake, fair looking (and married) little Chilean gal was blatantly flirting with me right in front of my wife and her beta husband – a very good looking guy, but shy and reserved. She’s Teasing, touching, sexualizing convo. Telling me how amazing I look for my age – I’m 50, etc. etc.

This morning wife asks me how she looks, is she fat… Total comfort tests. Then remarks offhand that we’ll have our own private room without kids for upcoming vacation. Shit works like a finely crafted Swiss watch if you pay attention to the signals.

Most interestingly… I used to become very uncomfortable with women flirting with me either in my wife’s presence or not. At the time I rationalized it as betrayal. What I was really worried about though was her negative reaction: “It’s disrespectful… You’re an asshole…” The silent treatment, etc. It was only when I stopped giving a shit about her reaction, that things started changing dramatically.

One thing I think is helpful for men to make their LTR women understand (implicitly or explicitly) is that instinctually and instantly, our very first interaction with most women includes our assessment of her fuckability. I actually want my LTR to know that in any interaction I have with a woman, I’ve already imagined fucking her, however briefly.

I’ll even go one further. Smart money in 2014 is to stay OUT of the gym. I am a big guy at 6’2 and 255, and even though I worked up to benching 345, I have cut all training to 2 times a month and am actively cutting everything (including muscle) to 215 or lower.

A. My mind is stronger than my body will ever be. That was the real goal.

B. I’m getting older and at almost 40, even for the 20 year olds you can be too perfect. Had a TON (well, 6 which is more than I’m used to) of self-ejections in the last year. I think it mostly has to do with what Mangan covers well when talks of “growth vs. longevity”. There is a reason that the upperclass stays verylean and tan. Beefcake in your 20’s is OK but after 30, its a massive longevity DLV.

C. Today, when Uncle Sugar will take care of a woman and her children cradle to grave, certain things just aren’t needed. Certain behaviors not rewarded. Your attitude is EVERYTHING.

Thoroughbred mentions that “I used to become very uncomfortable with women flirting with me either in my wife’s presence or not. At the time I rationalized it as betrayal.” This is, scientifically, a side effect of oxytocin on the male brain: a sufficiently pair-bonded *man* views other women as threats to the relationship. In contrast a pair-bonded woman feels that other women cannot be threats, because Love. Because women are this way, Dread is the only effective tool, even though a man in love cannot effectively use Dread (this is my big disagreement with married Game).

Rollo, you wrote: “There are plenty of high-functioning, masculine men we would characterize as Alpha based on our perception of them in many aspects of life, who nonetheless are abject supplicating Betas with regard to how they interact with, and defer to women.”

This is, IMO, because of the very difficulty about which you are writing – how to define alpha. And although I agree with your discussion about “tells”, those tells are the effect rather than the cause.

My suggestion (which I have made elsewhere on other blogs, and won’t belabor here) is to view the concept of alpha and beta as stemming from a temperamental difference within the psyche of the individual. Essentially, does the individual prioritize his OWN feelings (Fi), or does he prioritize the feelings of OTHERS (Fe). Based on this prioritization (which is inborn and temperamental unless purposely altered by the individual), they will naturally become either the alpha or the beta archetypes.

What you describe regarding “high functioning, masculine men that we would characterize as Alpha based on our perception in many aspects of life, who nonetheless are supplicating Betas….with women” – this is the Fe-based personality. Such a person’s personality is based on the ROLE that they perceive others require of them, and is very contextual. Thus, the Fe-dominant personality may appear masculine and dominant in those situation wherein he perceives his role requires such behavior (eg. his job), but behave in a more submissive/equalist way in situations where that is the role he perceives (eg. his marriage).

Whereas the Fi-dominant individual does not care about his “role”, only about his own desires. And if such a person is good-looking/successful/confident enough, he will be Alpha in his relationships (and if not, he will be a shunned Omega – but either way, he won’t be supplicating/beta).

Still trying to decode the header pic.
So is it that the top guy is Alpha and the babyfaced pudgy kid is Beta?
He’s leaning out and upright, and his squeeze is cuddling childlike up to him,whereas matey on the bottom step has got it just about all ass-backwards.

Top guy is a bit more hi-T/ Don Draperish and is looking a tiny bit pissed-off, one hand dangling nonchalantly like he’s not all that bothered.

Soft lad is crawling into his girl like she was his mommy and she’s looking, well, like the cool guy, more than a bit disinterested/asleep/drunk (assuming it’s New Year).

But, and it’s a big butt, if I was Upstairs Cat and all I’d pulled was this very indifferent slightly jowly 6-ish, with wa-aay too much “puppy-fat” for the ’60s (I was there, but I had a bad time so I can remember it fairly clearly, unlike most boomers), and Floor Cat has snagged himself a proper stunner, despite his fag-boots, well I’d be seething slightly too.

I’d guess Mr A there is upwardly-mobile middle class, possibly non-WASP, and he’s doing as well as can be expected, whereas that’s Timmy Trustfundington III down below, with the daughter of one of Daddy’s yachting associates??
Otherwise I remain baffled by the mismatch in squeeze-quality, given the crystal-clear opposition in alphaness/betatude. Wifeswappers? What?

(I know very little of your curious foreign ways of course, particularly with regards to status/class/race and all that malarkey).

The socially dominant babe “Babe” with the trousers has, as per *usual* NOT unusual, chosen the beta Timmy more for his rear-end-tickling skills than his trust fund. As a man who is unfortunately more clued-in to women’s trends than I’d like to be, Babe’s half-eyebrow-look definitively narrows the possible window of time to within the past half-dozen years, plus or minus. Nothing can be gleaned from the holder on her tucked ponytail. As you alluded, Ms. Upstairs Kat’s fashions are totally irrelevant, to everyone …

Believe it or not the quality of the electropolish on the escalator cladding also points to installation since the year 2000. The unfashionable, at any time, fur-lined hat was newly purchased and chosen almost strictly for practicality, while the unfortunate choice of brolly was Timmy’s out-the-door way of whiteknighting Babe, albeit ineffectively, protecting her from the big bad elements. She correctly predicted that, hence her practical attire. They all face a walk outside in the winter, and are in no hurry, presumably awaiting their conveyance. These are the Down stairs from some convention-center party, down which many party-leavers have already traveled.

Top Dog and Upstairs Kat have a bit more life in them, hence the unopened possibly screw-top champagne. She is pretending an extra degree of sousedness hoping to be taken advantage of.

Here is another Beta Tell (apologies gmp link). When Elloa told the world that, after a brief honeymoon period with her loving husband, “It frightened me that my hunger for a cheap thrill had the power to overshadow the vows I took” “What drove this attraction was a subconscious drive… to sabotage happiness and push love away.”

When honest, women *admit* knowing that they deliberately push loving men away specifically to avoid sex. Nige reveals the hard self-work this caused him.http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/wife-told-wants-cheat-heres-feel-gmp/
So, know he knows his wife *wants* him to live in a de-sexed “place no man wants to go—a pit of despair, self-loathing, shame and loneliness.” And now he’s ok with that; he’s resigned to his fate.

The Build A Better Beta Project! It’s should be more sad to me, but I’m amused today.

I don’t know if you bothered looking at the Jerk articles last week at the If You’re Going To Bother Hooking Up You’d Be Smart To Stick To Uncaring Alphas site, but their True Jerk whining made me laugh. The girls were complaining about their apex fallacy “all the guys I’d be interested in are all jerks” while complaining that the guys were just pretend jerks i.e. not True Jerks like the girls would prefer.

A friend of mine, who does murky things for a living for the USG and is emerging from divorce and reading blogs such as this for clues, sent me this text this morning to decode. He’s been meeting an UMC married woman in the shadows. They’ve known each other for years, but she remarried a ‘Good Man’ three years ago:

“I have no regrets with you. Only that I did not allow myself to meet you before i was married. I was afraid of you. I regret hurting my husband this deeply. It makes me feel sick, as it should. However, if I had my choice I would choose you.”

Apparently the marriage, which was a commuting marriage, was fine for the first two years — until he changed jobs and actually moved in with her. Now his physical presence, his whining, I don’t know, sickens her. I told my buddy to just shut it down and let her sort out her own living room. I didn’t say it to him, but she probably got caught because she wanted to get caught. Someone needs to start a blog titled ‘alphawidowmaker.com’.

My view is that this is a very common situation, where a woman convinces herself that what the culture tells her she *should* want, and particularly in the case of a second marriage, she *does* want. You know, a supportive, kind, safe somewhat pussified dude. And of course, she doesn’t want it, not really. She wants the guy who scares her etc. It’s another Cindy Sherman performance art piece: “Save me from what I want.”

My experience also is that most UMC marriages do not implode as this one probably will. Instead the wife just expresses her disinterest or contempt over the decades for their beta draft horses, while men shrug and say ‘happy wife, happy life’ and all the rest of it, while they polish their man caves, improve their w-2’s annually, and self-service in the shower.

One possible explanation for Fear’s attractiveness is the Handicap Principle of alphaness. According to the Handicap Principle, any exaggerated male trait that ought to reduce the male’s survival is attractive to females because he shows his good genes by his ability to bear the burden of … bad gene traits.

Interestingly, the peacocks with the most elaborate tailfeathers have the *best* survival rate. So the Handicap Principal never did apply in the one big example of it. The jury is still out, however, whether the reason those peacocks survive better is simply because the lesser peacocks just give up and want to die because the females don’t like them.

Talk about inversion. This bizarre idea is that long after bed death, that after burying the dead bed in dry dust, that tending the grave of the dead bed is somehow more loving than keeping the bed lively.

“The beatings will continue until your behavior improves. I no longer have major preferences, one way or the other, about your feelings …”http://sethadamsmith.com/2014/11/02/the-love-i-deserve/
After his wife unilaterally dialed back the sex after the honeymoon period, Seth righteously felt cheated. Now he has redefined True Love as putting up with his wife’s deliberate choices to hurt him.

Looks have always mattered more to women then men when when it comes to just purely sex and less when it comes to commitment. With men it is the reverse, looks matter less when it comes to just sex but matter more when it comes to commitment.

Bingo,

Interesting point. I’ve never seen it pointed out quite this way but I think you are right in how men and women apply looks differently for short-term casual sex vs long-term commitment.

jf12… Some fairly stellar and startling insights on the nature of love vis-a-vis man and woman. Aligns pretty closely to the “men are the true romantics” and “women love opportunistically” themes here.

There are some serious paradoxes in all of this that I’m field testing in real time now with my LTR after years of being the hopeless romantic beta. Namely, that you really almost need to fall out of love with your LTR – at least in the sense of the “romantic love” men become victims to – for you to have the chance that her opportunistic love will bloom.

I agree that a man in love cannot effectively use dread, at least in the case of “love” being defined as the all-consuming romantic love we’re suckers for. But through studied indifference, less showing of affection, being open to the attentions of other women, putting myself first, raising my SMV… the wife is now responding much more favorably.

I guess its classic “push pull” in one sense, but man I’ve had to take it to an extreme… Actually seriously contemplating divorce and walking right up to the edge. More importantly, I had to be emotionally and mentally okay with it. In many ways I had to actually prefer that option. That’s when I guess I fell out of love and paradoxically increased the wife’s attraction towards me.

Do I “love” her today? Man, that’s a really tough question. I enjoy her company more. I’m physically attracted to her. I enjoy spending time with her. I no longer have the bouts of white hot anger I used to have because she wasn’t responding the way I would have liked.

But she’s not the only fish in the sea… I now know that. But more importantly, I think she now knows that… I’ve made my peace with the fact that there is no “one” and I now conceptualize “love” much differently than I did previously.

Another Alpha tell is women have a different “sexual personality” with men they perceive as Alpha.

They want an Alpha to “fuck her” not “tenderly make love” to her.

I think women also will sexually interact with men they perceive as alpha completely different than beta. For example (bit extreme) but an alpha can say something mid-fucking like “tell me you are my slut” and she will respond “Yea, I am your slut” whereas a beta guy engaging in transactional sex will get her recoiling in horror to the exact same statement.

Speaking of alpha tells, an alpha can’t tell a beta about Game without the beta’s internal filters interpreting then rejecting that advice as “asshole tactics.” I know because this happened to me. Not until I read about Dave from Hawaii on Heartiste’s site where he gave an example of everyday couples relating to each other did I finally get it. A simple example of Game and being alpha simply by being the one to take charge while ordering lunch. Who would have thought! I had been reading Heartiste for about two weeks before that time and I kept rejecting it on reflex, but I’m lucky SOMETHING was calling me back there and I got to read that Relationship Game Week post.

@ Genghis Can
No, I don’t have a blog. I’m just a commentator here and at Heartiste’s blog.

@M Simon
re: inner alpha
The thing is, some men already have the instinctive qualities of alpha but they haven’t actualized it because of feminine conditioning. One only needs to look at beta basketball and football players for evidence. If these guys were to become red pill and game aware, they would be absolute pussy slayers.

But on the other hand, take an average guy and while he may achieve an awareness via the redpill and game, it will still be no where near the magnitude as those other top tier guys.

@Bango Tango
I remember Heartiste saying that Tinder was only for “attention whores and should not be taken seriously” and I disagreed with him by posting a comment, but it was indefinitely stuck in moderation. I never thought of him as being purposely disingenuous, but now that you mention it, who knows?

But anyway, his line of thinking that all girls on tinder are attention whores is null. That’s like saying only sluts go to bars or nightclubs. Tinder attracts the very same girls you would find at your local book club or arts class. Most girls are well adjusted (as sane as girls these days can get) and they’re pretty pleasant to be around. I hardly meet any girl who’s a complete attention whore or with some hidden agenda. They just want to have fun and if something bigger happens, then they’ll see to it that it happens.

I may go off on the deep end here, but I think women really are all about experiencing different things. Girls hate being bored, stuck, or alone. They crave people and experiences a lot (more so than most men) and will do anything to satisfy this. There’s a reason why most feminine women filled with that bubbly energy are usually surrounded by a lot of friends. The more people she has in contact with (and unfortunately for some, sex with) the more attuned she feels as to who she is. Someone explained this better but it escapes me at the moment…

@Morpheus
What Bango said is true but I’ll still wager that a man’s looks still matters when it comes to a relationship, too. You see, girls like showing off the guys they’re with. Young girls love taking pictures with their boyfriends and showing them off to the whole world. It’s almost as if he’s an accomplishment to her, especially if he’s of higher value in relative to her own. But yes, I agree they matter much more from a strictly ONS perspective.

Also your theory, “They want an Alpha to “fuck her” not “tenderly make love” to her.”

Is right on the money. There’s been many times where I’m banging a girl and after making out for a bit, she’ll move her head to the side and urge me to fuck the living hell out of her. I remember once a girl literally said to me, “I don’t want you to make love with me, I want you to fuck me as hard as you can!”

A good mark for how alpha (or again, your value in relation to her’s) is how dirty she gets in bed with you. If she lets you have your way with her and I mean completely lets you, you can bet you’re her number 1. I’ve had girls tell me after sex, “So how did I do? What can I do to make it better for you? Tell me, I want to make you happy.”

Also, a girl’s overall demeanor(the “nice” one she carefully crafts for society) changes once you’ve had her in your rotation for quite some time. She often won’t help herself in making everything(!) sexual for you. Girl’s will grab my dick, ass, pretty much anything to insinuate raw sex afterward.

For the guys reading, realize that if a woman doesn’t act this way with you, you are not her top priority. Girls are highly sexual beings and when you think about it, that’s all they can be. A woman is, essentially, a breeding machine. She’s a recipient of all that is sexual. I believe it was heartiste who said, “Women are only vessels for either an Alpha or a child.” That’s a bit simplistic but looking at it in that way can give you a completely different perspective when a girl denies your advances.

I hear ya. I think, very possibly, the post-red-pill, post-romantic, post-partner-centered, post-nice-guy “love”, in quotes, is a whole lot closer to what females feel (or rather their lack of feeling) than what males would consider feeling in love. “What’s in it for me, sweetheart?” is both more alpha and more female.

TM, per usual I agree with you but there is an innocence curve, I suspect that goes up instead of down. The least sexually aggressive women, and the easiest to shock with unrestrained fucking, in my experience are the low-N, recently divorced women I’ve known. They’re probably much more naive than what you are used to.

I do believe, as well, that you know where you stand with a woman by how badly she tries to please you in the sack. You know you are her alpha if she has performance anxiety, gives without expecting reciprocity (e.g., she gives you head driving down the highway), and says the sort of thing TM’s girl says (“was that good enough for you?”). But this involves some Game, as a man needs to make clear that he *expects* to be pleased in the sack. I think a woman’s default outlook is that just providing access is some sort of huge win for a guy, and that’s a Next! for any man with options. (Again my reflections are on over-30 women.)

It mystifies me to this day that most women say “men just care about sex” but fail to drawn a line between that dot and the one that reads “so I am going to be really good at sex.” But some do.

Morpheus, I don’t know if most women who chase an alpha want the Christian Grey soft-bdsm experience. (And I don’t know if or when I am an ‘alpha’; I am more comfortable with Vox’s ‘sigma’ variation.) I think it depends on their background. There is a woman trying very, very hard to please me at the moment; she flipped out when I was going to tie her up with some neckties, she trembles in fear when I make remarks on her butt, and it’s remedial training when it comes to oral. But she’s making great strides!

Then again, when I was dating a WASP clone of Grace Kelly, she said, Please don’t bruise me where people can see it. And when I was dating the Daddy Erotica specialist, she wasn’t joking: the evenings began with her pleading for forgiveness and begging for a spanking. (The latter, no shit, is a trauma center shrink.) I wouldn’t think men are quite all over the map, like this, but I suppose we are.

I agree with all the points here and I would do well to pay attention to “alpha traits” as I’m working to reinvent myself.

But the other side of the equation is raising your testosterone. Testosterone is what makes men men. Testosterone I/O by Christopher Walker, who got his T levels off the charts after having them at rock bottom and being fat, weak, tired and depressed, is a great read. All without supplements or prescription drugs.

Taking care of your body by working out and eating nourishing food also helps ground you and set clear boundaries without you having to think about it:

When it’s a priority for you to work out, to be in bed at a certain time, to eat at a certain time, to do everything you need to do to take care of yourself — your boundaries set themselves. Because it’s your lifestyle, you don’t have to consciously think about setting those boundaries. When you prioritize yourself, a lot of things fall into place naturally.

Anyway, after all this going on for a while, I was at a party the other night. These girls were on a couch playing some game. I watched for a little while, then I told them to move to make room for me. I sat down inbetween them and put my arms around both of them like it was nothing and casually joined in the game they were playing.

I had them laughing and one of the girls was pressing herself up against me after a while and putting her hand on my leg here and there.

The real good deal was *I* had a good time. I went to a party and instead of standing around by myself getting drunk like the AFC I always was, and not even talking to one girl….I decided fuck it, I deserve to have a good time. And what do I want to do to have a good time? I want to at least have some fun with some girls for once. I didn’t come all the way out there to do this lame shit all over again with me being a frustrated wallflower.

And it was great. I deserved to have a good time so I made sure that I had a good time by doing what I wanted to do. And it worked. Cool. The next step would be getting a girl to come back with me to my car and blow me and/or fuck me before going back to the party. I still freeze up for whatever reason at the idea of that. But I used to freeze up about even talking to girls, so just going up to two girls I didn’t know and putting my arms around them and getting a great response and having a great time was a huge eye opener for me, and absolutely a tremendous improvement from sitting/standing by myself watching everyone else have a good time.

My attitude now, after all the shit I’ve been through in my life, is that everything I want with women is the LEAST I deserve. And if whatever girl isn’t that interested in me, I owe it to myself to let it go immediately and look elsewhere for another girl that is. NEXT.

Having other people not give a fuck about your wants and needs, when you desperately wish they would, can be a fantastic wakeup call. It can get you pissed off enough to start respecting yourself and start caring less about what other people think about you or want from you.

Naturals have, to a man, been coddled by women their whole lives, from babyhood on up. Women fight alphas’ battles for them, so the alphas don’t have to. And, THE way that women’s brains experience the strongest romantic love is more or less identical to mother-child bonding, which is why cats are an effective substitute. Hence, another way of expressing the self-centeredness of the alpha=jerk equation is

Alpha = Big Baby

Make her want to take care of you, to bring you food offerings, and wipe your heinie, for fear of your displeasure.

jf12… I don’t know man. You lost me there unless I’m missing some nuance. Women hate big baby men that can’t fend for themselves. Total turn off for them. The biggest betas are often children and their LTRs or wives are repulsed by their helplessness.

I get much better mileage now by demonstrating that I don’t need my wife at all… Not for anything. She got on my case awhile back when she was cooking dinner for the family… Nagging me in advance and in a particularly condescending and nasty way about how there was only a certain amount of meat, I could only have one serving, etc.

I didn’t even look at her as I opened the fridge and said “Yeah, No worries. I’m not eating that. I’m making my own dinner.” She was crushed.

re: “The biggest betas are often children and their LTRs or wives are repulsed by their helplessness.”

This is yet another Big Lie of the FI. The biggest betas are uncomplaining drafthorses who come home from work to a cold kitchen and no dinner and have to rub their wives’ feet sore from a long day of shopping.

For example, Christian Grey, demanding his bottle of narcissistic supply, coddled by Mommy Dearest, forever playing with his toys, being picky about his food, etc., and last but not least inspiring 100 million older moms to want to take care of his needs, is a Big Baby.

@TM. I really appreciate your accurate observations and your willingness to share them here. I don’t think that the average man really understands the degree to which a woman can desire a man. As a natural alpha you see it and you are also able to observe those that aren’t getting that and compare the two. There is a huge difference between a woman really wanting a man and just willing to be with a man. Although a woman can really want to be with a man based on her options or lack there of, it still doesn’t mean that real desire is there. You nailed it with your level of enthusiasm example (then she is not your top priority). Good shit.

jf12 is suggesting the “big baby” originates not from the behavior of the man but rather the responsive behavior of the woman. It’s in the care, attention, and coddling behavior of woman. The man, as always, is irrelevent except insofar as he inspires this behavior from women. The man is not acting like a baby, but is the recipient of similar quality and quantity of affectioate attention.

The other side of the coin is the man treated as a “responsible adult” by women is the beta. He is burdened with total and complete responsibility for the woman’s behavior, so that she may act as a child.

Really in both cases the party that has the burden of demonstrating care is the weaker one.

@Thoroughbred: damn, could have written your situation as my own and not known the difference. I think too long being with our beta selves may be too much to overcome. The old ladies may never be able to see us in our new alpha skins. But, as you mention, I don’t really give an F if she does or not, or if all this works or not. I just know every day is harder to control the awakened alpha urges, and now with Game knowledge, I know it’s be easier than ever to execute on them.

The most accurate representation of the “Alpha” concept I’ve found is the biological definition of the Dark Triad. I’ve written at length about it here [1], but in layman’s terms, it is a man who is capable of successfully manipulating others to achieve his ends without regards to any external limitations such as laws, ethics, politics, or morals. Note the emphasis on success, as those who fail will be punished heavily by society’s immune system. Yet those who succeed run the world, within every institution and at every level.

Evolutionary game theory postulates that co-operation yields the most positive economic outcome in a system of individual rational actors. Yet within any population, a small percentage of non-cooperators can thrive and be massively successful. Empirically, this is precisely what we observe in our institutions today. The majority of successful politicians, businessmen and leaders score very highly in dark triad traits.

You nailed it with your level of enthusiasm example (then she is not your top priority). Good shit.

lol I meant you’re not HER priority.

@Jf12. You live in Marin? Crazy coincidence. I grew up at the Green Gulch Farm in your linked article (1970’s). Trust me those Buddhists are airy fairy liberals with their heads up ass. I know this first hand….

@BT, no, the womynz in the article live there, not me. My current closest tie to Marin County is a rapidly aging alpha gay nephew currently the “boy” toy of an extremely wealthy and obese semi-retired proctologist. A couple of decades ago a close friend, an oil executive, retired early after a bitter divorce and bought a private beach with its own yacht dock, supposedly saving enough money in marina rental fees to pay for it after a few years. He kept playing the siren call of the sovereign man to me, but I had seaweed wrapped around my head and I couldn’t hear it.

The demographics are a closely held secret, but have been previously reported to have stabilized to about 60/40 men/women, after being a huge sausage-fest at first, after more than a year of marketing directed exclusively at recruiting women. The vast majority of men log on a few times, realize they aren’t going to succeed, and never log on again. Their profiles remain active of course. The vast majority of women who are active users log on compulsively, checking to see which men they can reject.

This is the part that women enjoy: rejecting men. As I’ve said, women rate themselves by the value of men they *reject*, NOT the men they accept. So a woman will scrutinize for long minutes an ostensibly valid match for her, looking to see how many “unacceptable!” points the man has, like one slightly ragged fingernail, slightly too-fluffy hair on one side, his slightly smarmy smile in one of his photos, etc.

@ Thoroughbred I feel the same, its like some kind of evil paradox, if you love her you lose her, if you can do better shes yours. Of course this might explain why Indian arranged marriages end up happier that western style “love” marriages. I think alot of the problem just comes because of our former mating strategies that evolved in tribes. Even today if you go to places like manaus, brazil people aren’t too worried about whose children are whose(my colombian friend was said “WTF?? I want my children to be my own!”). Its this tribal mentality where women are servicing the betas when infertile, and looking for alpha excitement when she is fertile. Men fight and hunt together creating a bond, so conflict is minimalized. Everyone is fucking, and tribes have a higher rate of homosexuality-everywhere I’ve gone where there are indians, the women complain about all the gay guys! I’m really curious to know if there was any kind of dedicated love in former times or if it is more of the polyamorous type in vogue in places like SF.

alphaness of a male towards a female is exhibited by her wanting to please him

Bingo… I was recently at a party and one of my “core group” women was with me, and sat at my feet throughout the evening. Whenever she saw that either I needed a drink or anything else she would hurry to get it for me and while most of the time I just took it as my due. One of the times, I took a handful of her hair and gave her a kiss – then a swat on the tail as my thanks for her consideration.

It was interesting to see the various responses throughout the room by men and women alike. One of the women said something to the effect that if her husband tried that, he wouldn’t like the outcome. I just smiled and said, “That’s why SHE is happy rather than angry at other women’s happiness.”

Can alpha be accurately described as a “mindset”, a state of zen so to speak, or more specifically a sense of awareness experienced by we who transcend the dominance of others and never feel the need to subjugate ourselves or supplicate to anyone?

“Essentially, does the individual prioritize his OWN feelings (Fi), or does he prioritize the feelings of OTHERS (Fe). Based on this prioritization (which is inborn and temperamental unless purposely altered by the individual), they will naturally become either the alpha or the beta archetypes.”

I think there is a lot of truth to this, the two different attitudes triggering all sorts of secondary behaviors which are picked up on by others.

I know for myself, I have been very much Fe for most of my life until recently. I begam to realize that I always try to consider everyone else’s feelings first, and by extension, mine come last.

That is in essence supplication, because this behavior of always trying to please others to make them like you, rather than yourself.

Problem is, most people will gladly take advantage without reciprocation, and as already covered, it is not an arousing behavior for women.

(I just recently had a distancing of a long standing friendship because I put my feelings as a priority in a situation. It hurts to injure a friendship, but it is more damaging to compromise your own feelings and self-respect.)

Further, as Robert A. Glover covered in No More Mr. Nice Guy, many people who are Fe assume that their efforts WILL be recognized and rewarded, and when they are not, they get angry and frustrated.

The woman of his affections then gets annoyed because to her perception, he was pretending to be “A Nice Guy” with ulterior motives.

Bottom line, I think you can take other people’s feelings into consideration, but if you are not considering yours first and by default the priority, you are seriously screwing up your sense of self-respect and self-worth, which will keep you far from Alpha mindset.

Seraph – “The woman of his affections then gets annoyed because to her perception, he was pretending to be “A Nice Guy” with ulterior motives.”

This is important. I hadn’t made the conscious connection before. Women think “nice” is a subtle con job because that’s how they, and why they do nice. There is nothing genuine in a “nice” girl but her genuine want of something from the man she is being nice to. Something she can’t just take.

I stumbled across this site a few weeks ago and with each article I became increasingly cynical about my relationship and relationships in general. However I want to thank Rollo for this article because it made me feel closer to my wife. The checklist at the end of this article brought everything back into perspective.

Q) Is she affectionate without being prompted or only when circumstance makes your comfort needed for her?
A) Nearly always affectionate.

Q) Is Amused Mastery an easy default for you, or does she resist even playful attempts at it?
A) Effortless default.

Q) Does she initiate sex with you, or is your provocation only ever the precursor to sex?
A) She initiates sex.

Q) Is sex even a priority for her (with you)?
A) She does her best to satisfy me in bed. She hasn’t gained a pound. She keeps her hair long and beautiful. She wears very little makeup. She knows I like these things and simply does them. I probably shouldn’t take that for granted.

Q) Does she make efforts to make things special for you (you both) or is your relationship one of her grading your efforts in qualifying for her Alpha approval of you?
A) As far as I’m aware she doesn’t grade me, certainly not to my face.

Rollo’s checklist has brought me CLOSER to my wife, not further away. It’s one thing to believe your wife appreciates you but another to test that idea against a measurable checklist. If you are a woman who hates this site maybe you shouldn’t. Then again, many of you probably should.

So, to avoid activating the alpha fucks/beta bucks mating strategy/psychological module in a woman, make sure you are one standard deviation above the mean in sexual attractiveness (which is the 85th percentile for sexual attractiveness).

In a feminist/matriarchial society which culturally, socially and legally incentivises cuckoldry, the bottom 85 percent of men are better off shifting their loyalties to an anti-feminist/patriarchal society, as such a society would proscribe women’s natural/instinctual inclinations to cuckold such men.

In the future, you may see a mass exodus of the bottom 85 percent of men to patriarchal countries like Russia and the Middle East or atleastly a shift in support of the cultural imperialism/hegemony of those countries as those countries would espouse a cultural, social and legal regime that proscribes the bottom 85 percent of men’s reproductive exploitation.

The man-o-sphere/ Red Pill is a sub culture and sub cultures frequently have their own terminology. Alpha as commonly defined in the man-o-spehre/ Red Pill is a good working definition. If a man doesn’t like the the way it is defined its still the language of that land for us. Deal with it here and use a different definition in the other areas of life.

Morpheus I agree with your hypothesis and have been thinking along those lines for long time. The last 12 months or so have solidified the concept for me.

@zdr01dz, this is encouraging. I’m pretty much the same in my own marriage (I do initiate about half the time, but that’s me).

However I should point out that this list was just a suggestion. There’s a lot more to Alpha deference than just the most obvious sexual behaviors.

I was hoping to get some more input on the meta behaviors from the commentariat, but, for example, does she take your hand when you’re out together or are you the one always reaching for her?

When you’re taking a picture together, is she leaning underneath you and turning into to your body, or is she upfront presenting herself while you clasp your hands and arms around her waist?

I was planning a Beta Tells post as a follow up to this one, but it’s almost too easy to list those behaviors (from a Beta man’s directive), since they’re so common and identifiable. I’m still debating whether to post it, since it’ll invariably come off as Beta Hating due to how easy it is to recount behaviors that most guys are guilty of. I dunno, maybe…

Alpha tells are really just as obvious, but it’s my guess that most men have either never genuinely experienced them or just remain suspect of them because they want to believe they’re not reading what their women are really telling them behaviorally.

Also, I’m not talking about how a man ought to posture and position himself in order to appear more Alpha (Roissy has loads of posts about that), but rather, my question is, what behaviors do women exhibit in the presence of a man they at least perceive as being Alpha?

Rollo – “I was planning a Beta Tells post as a follow up to this one, but it’s almost too easy to list those behaviors (from a Beta man’s directive), since they’re so common and identifiable. I’m still debating whether to post it, since it’ll invariably come off as Beta Hating due to how easy it is to recount behaviors that most guys are guilty of. I dunno, maybe…

Alpha tells are really just as obvious, but it’s my guess that most men have either never genuinely experienced them or just remain suspect of them because they want to believe they’re not reading what their women are really telling them behaviorally.”

I think you should post the Beta tells, but it should under the same model as the Alpha tells. It’s not the man’s behavior but the woman’s behavior that indentifies/validates the man as either Alpha or Beta.

I think most of us know what the man has to do to be Alpha, but I think it would be very helpful for those of us unplugged to have a better descriptive of how a woman commonly validates and responds to that beyond the obviously sexual. Much of my own difficulty past and present is simply misreading these reactive behaviors. I am not talking about IOIs here but those sorts of nuanced covert signals that aid and further preselection by indicating to the herd that at least one woman finds a given man to be high enough value, Alpha enough to get a nod of approval.

Lastly, I believe by clarifying that the tells are not about his behavior/looks/words/game but her reaction we could get beyond some the contentious back and forth about what is Alpha or Beta as we men see it. It really doesn’t matter what we men think is Alpha or Beta any more than it matters what women think is physically attractive in women.

“Hypothesis: Another Alpha tell is women have a different “sexual personality” with men they perceive as Alpha.

They want an Alpha to “fuck her” not “tenderly make love” to her.

I think women also will sexually interact with men they perceive as alpha completely different than beta. For example (bit extreme) but an alpha can say something mid-fucking like “tell me you are my slut” and she will respond “Yea, I am your slut” whereas a beta guy engaging in transactional sex will get her recoiling in horror to the exact same statement.

Just throwing it out as a working theory…thoughts?”
.

I think that you are right.

Women not only want to submit to a man who is superior to them, and who has strength of will, and power in his own right, but they also want to be dominated and “owned” by him.

In that type of a relationship, there would be nothing unnatural (or extreme) about his saying “tell me you are my slut”, because they would both see her as his “slave”, in both the sexual and non-sexual aspects of their relationship.

This would exist as an unspoken consensus from a rapidly evolved natural and stable state, and never as a contract like those in contrived relationships where the man is given “permission” to be in “absolute” control.

“A beta guy engaging in transactional sex will get her recoiling in horror to the exact same statement”, because it would be an attempt at domination by a person perceived as being at least inadequate.

Any man who thinks that this reaction is completely unreasonable should consider how he feels when he has to be deferential to an inferior at work, and then consider the much greater vulnerabilities of women to such men.

Some of the seemingly nonsensical female behaviors could be evolved responses to these vulnerabilities.
.

@ BuenaVista, November 3rd, 2014 at 2:54 pm

“Morpheus, I don’t know if most women who chase an alpha want the Christian Grey soft-bdsm experience. … There is a woman trying very, very hard to please me at the moment; she flipped out when I was going to tie her up with some neckties …”

Counterintuitively, in the context here, the point of tying a woman up is to allow her to lose control and experience being “property”, and not a way for a man to establish or extend dominance.

In such situations, above all else, a woman needs to feel safe that she will not be injured, and secure that the man knows what he is doing.

Therefore, a man’s dominance, capabilities, knowledge and self-control (this last one is the most important) need to be demonstrated consistently, over a period of time, first.

Once a compatible woman is confident that a man, and preferably one who could do whatever he wanted to her anyway, is being smart and careful when it comes to her well-being, she will welcome being tied up.

This is because bondage, with intense (adequate for her, and no higher) stimulation, is what allows her to experience a compressed psychological thrill ride of being “owned”.

(Notice that there is a huge difference between “intense stimulation”, and “pain” like when she drops a can of beans on her foot.)

Before a man engages in something like this, he should first ensure that what he is doing cannot harm her physically or psychologically (know her background), and then understand that she will be reacting to a combination of what is going on externally, and what is going on only in her mind.
.

@ Thoroughbred, November 3rd, 2014 at 3:39 pm

“… I don’t know man. You lost me there unless I’m missing some nuance. Women hate big baby men that can’t fend for themselves. Total turn off for them. The biggest betas are often children and their LTRs or wives are repulsed by their helplessness.”

When a woman forms a deep bond to a (significant, and not just “looks”) Alpha, it tends toward a slave-to-master type of psychological desire and attachment.

These women then want to devote themselves to taking care of their Alphas, in the only way that is natural for them, which can seem similar to a mother-child interaction, but the motivation and mindset are completely different.

The actions that they naturally select are those that are supportive, while also being submissive. Thus “serving her master” and “wiping his heinie (in the manner of a mother)” are mutually exclusive.

Women need to look up to their men in order to desire them, which is not possible if a man is any kind of “baby”, because he would then be below her (both by definition, and by her perception).

And women are natural followers, but it is simply not possible for a woman to follow a man whom she is also having to lead.
.

@ Rollo Tomassi, November 3rd, 2014 at 11:10 pm

“I was hoping to get some more input on the meta behaviors from the commentariat, but, for example, does she take your hand when you’re out together or are you the one always reaching for her?”

I have noticed that Redhead does two things all of the time, especially when we are out together.

When she talks to me, she sort of wraps herself under my right arm and looks up at me, while rubbing my back with her left hand.

And when we are just standing together, she will face me and rest her head on my chest, and then slide her arms under mine until she is pressing inward with her palms against my upper back.

This last one really upsets the fugly fembots for some reason, so whenever it is not inappropriate in such situations, I will grab her ass and lift her up a bit, which always makes her giggle and kick up her heels.
.

“I was planning a Beta Tells post as a follow up to this one, but it’s almost too easy to list those behaviors (from a Beta man’s directive), since they’re so common and identifiable. I’m still debating whether to post it, since it’ll invariably come off as Beta Hating due to how easy it is to recount behaviors that most guys are guilty of. I dunno, maybe…”

I think that this would be a good idea, since many Beta men remain unaware, and anything tangible helps.

I think women also will sexually interact with men they perceive as alpha completely different than beta. For example (bit extreme) but an alpha can say something mid-fucking like “tell me you are my slut” and she will respond “Yea, I am your slut” whereas a beta guy engaging in transactional sex will get her recoiling in horror to the exact same statement.

Just throwing it out as a working theory…thoughts?

@Morpheus. Yes this is exactly right. Your example is correct in what women expect from a sexual experience with a man they perceive as alpha vs. a sexual experience with a man they perceive as beta. This is the disconnect that beta men who have watched porn have and think their girlfriend will be willing (at first) to act the same way with them. They will be horrified initially. That does not mean the beta guy can’t change that perception once in the bedroom with a woman though. If enough attraction has been built a woman will still go with it even if she is uncomfortable.

But having said that it doesn’t mean that she actually wants to do it. This is the problem. When a woman searches out for a beta boyfriend she is not looking for sex. She is willing (key word willing) to exchange sex for the warm fuzzy cuddly feelings of being in a relationship. She might enjoy sex to the extent that she gets a buzz from the pair bonding experience but it is not the same as the animal sexual experience of being with the alpha. The problem that men have is the majority of the time when it comes to the bedroom it is that alpha sexual experience THEY are looking for. Men see all sex as more or less equal in what the experience will be or should be (more toward the animal side) where as women see it as two dramatically different experiences, getting fucked savagely by the alpha or love making with the beta. There is sometimes a middle ground but generally that’s the rule.

If you are aggressive enough as a beta there are ways to “train” a woman but there is a limit that you can go with that. Ultimately a woman will never perceive you as a true alpha if you are not one of the 20% (whatever) naturally that way. You can’t fool them, they know. Now obviously after men fully digest this the problem will be emotionally connecting with women because naturally as a man you want to be number one in her world. What man is going to be happy knowing his woman would rather be fucking the natural behind them in line at Starbucks.

This is why Muslim culture (hiding women beneath birkahs and not giving them any freedom) developed the way it did. It was attempting through force to circumvent women’s hypergamy so as to create stable relationships between men and women which means stable marriage, which means stable society. We see now the results of a culture that doesn’t do that and the chaos it causes. Women unfortunately because of their nature cannot be trusted to be responsible. This should be obvious to everyone by now.

re: “what behaviors do women exhibit in the presence of a man they at least perceive as being Alpha?”

These are some of the classics:

1. When he isn’t home, she misses him and so desires his presence that she really exerts herself to make herself and home look great. She spends a lot of time making his favorite meals every day, and rushes to open the door to greet him warmly and sexualizedly the instant he returns – smooching and stroking etc.

2. She *brings* him his food, always, every time, and often feeds it to him. This is essential, and if she isn’t doing this then she ain’t feeling the Alpha, sorry. She also removes the food when he’s through.

3. She scratches his back a LOT more than he scratches hers. Again, this is essential. Also, she just plain can’t keep her hands off him: she’s constantly patting something or rubbing something, smoothing his hair, etc.

4. She can’t keep her eyes off him. Usually, she looking at his eyes to see what *he’s* looking at (not because he has such great eyes). She wants to be sure to know what he’s interested in, so she can jump up and do his bidding, being guided by his eyes.

5. She stops whatever she’s doing, including with the kids, to hear what he’s saying the instant he looks like he’s about to say something.

Many women erroneously, and obviously in support of the FI, claim to believe that men feel more alpha when the man is working hard to take care of the woman, i.e. “benevolent sexism”. The opposite is true.

Spot on. But until he wakes up, a man tends to conflate a woman’s oxytocin-induced satiety with his own serotonin release: the former cuddly, the latter far more urgent and messy. And to be fair, the woman is equally confused. She wonders why he doesn’t want to linger endlessly between the sheets and instead he quickly mops up and turns on the TV.

For the alpha widow, memories of her own serotonin releases stem from the pumps and dumps she experienced with the bad boys of her past. To be fair, however, the man, especially if the woman has sabotaged her own attractiveness, is concentrating on much more ejaculation-inducing visuals to get off. In other words, he is masturbating with her vagina.

There is no mutually satisfying way out of this. But there is a way that satisfies ONE of the parties: the man. And the woman can go along for the ride if she cares to. And that way (for me and many other commenters here) is the very point of this blog.

We will have to agree to disagree then. Women are always talking to each other and know exactly who the real alphas of the tribe are. Yes you can trick them to an extent with signaling but ultimately they know. People magazine will always have consumers and those are not men.

Spot on. But until he wakes up, a man tends to conflate a woman’s oxytocin-induced satiety with his own serotonin release: the former cuddly, the latter far more urgent and messy. And to be fair, the woman is equally confused. She wonders why he doesn’t want to linger endlessly between the sheets and instead he quickly mops up and turns on the TV.

@bbb. I was trying to think of the two chemicals that were released with these different brain states of a woman and couldn’t. Thanks for that. And you’re right, after sex a woman still wants to cuddle while the man has his shoes on and is ready to jet.

redpill Christmas songs. First up, “Santa Baby”. Santa here is completely beta, and the song is all about how he can take care of her wants, what he can do for her, how he makes her feel good. Note the ironic use of the dimunitive, her way of teasing her sugar daddy, reinforcing the idea that she *knows* she should be taking care of him instead.